Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 10, Number 5—May 2004

Research

Seasonal Forecast of St. Louis Encephalitis Virus Transmission, Florida

Jeffrey Shaman*Comments to Author , Jonathan F. Day†, Marc Stieglitz‡, Stephen Zebiak§, and Mark Cane‡
Author affiliations: *Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; †University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA; ‡Columbia University, New York, New York, USA; §International Research Institute for Climate Prediction, Palisades, New York, USA

Main Article

Table

Best-fit empirical relationships based on logistic regression analyses between lags of modeled WTD as simulated by the topographically based hydrology model and three categories of SLEV transmissiona,b

Predictand 1986–1991 Transmission incidence 1986–1991 Transmission no. 1986–1991 Epidemic transmission 1978–1997 Transmission incidence 1978–1997 Transmission no. 1978–1997 Epidemic transmission
Antecedent lag
17
14
11
16
8
16
Near coincident lag
2
0
0
2
2
-
Intercept
19.03 (3.74)
17.50 (1.79)
20.98 (7.07)
2.48 (0.39)
6.33 (0.46)
14.29 (3.50)
Antecedent slope
18.06 (3.65)
14.36 (1.45)
19.56 (7.03)
1.80 (0.36)
2.59 (0.38)
8.13 (2.50)
Significance
p < 0.0001
p < 0.0001
p < 0.01
p < 0.0001
p < 0.0001
p < 0.005
Near coincident slope
–6.21 (1.77)
–5.51 (0.79)
–8.26 (3.85)
–0.70 (0.34)
–0.53 (0.27)
-
Significance
p < 0.0001
p < 0.0001
p < 0.05
p < 0.05
p < 0.05
NS
Whole model fit p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.001

aEstimates of standard error are given in parentheses. For the transmission number category, the working correlation is r = 0.3.
bWTD, water table depth; SLEV, St. Louis encephalitis virus; NS, not significant.

Main Article

TOP